Comments on: ‘Most Likely’ Threats Driving Budget, Says Cartwright

By: MCC

MCC — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:50:45 +0000

Granted my boss would have me shot for saying this, but Cartwright does have some points. There does need to be more flexibility and that will mean breaking down some of the local interest hegemonies in defense acquisition. Services will need to rethink their default contractors, who will in turn need to change the mindset of “if I put it on the limitations list, everything is covered”.
The flip side is, we need stable (though not stationary) requirements and funding. Yes, I did just suggest that Congress expand it’s budget horizon further than one year. You won’t get the best solutions with a workforce that is constantly churning under the weight of contract changes and layoffs.

By: cvn

cvn — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:39:40 +0000

Obama is limiting the power projection capabilities of the United States — remember he thinks WE are the problem… A weaker US means more relative power to his socialist allies in Communist China and Russia.

barry wants a constabulary force similar to what old Europe “fields”

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:28:01 +0000

Upgrades in airpower cannot be ignored. Both the F-22&JSF should be built. The JSF is going to be sold to our allies, and there will be more JSF’s built than F-22’s. Is the Corps EFV a turkey? Or does it work? If it works, build it. Those Am-tracks they use are steel coffins, too slow, not for urban combat. The N-LOS is a winner. Can be air dropped and set up quick. More UAV’s, ones made to be used at platoon and sqaud level, is a must. How about a 6.8mm carbine that uses a gas/piston system? Magpul-Bushmaster has the capacity to equip the Army. Total gas impingment system has always been unreliable. 5.56 does not have the hitting power of a 6.8mm. Can we get a new pistol too?

By: HERD

HERD — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:23:11 +0000

The thinking is flawed. The greatest threat is terroroism. The most likely acts are those more simply achieved. However, these acts typically cause less damage. The focus needs to be on those acts most dangeerous; most threatening to human life and our economy——–NBC level threats which could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, along with severe economic disruptions.

By: Rbrenzelsr

Rbrenzelsr — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:18:59 +0000

This is always educational. I am not an expert but a close observer for 40 years of the literature and a minor participant as acquisition team member for a security system, bi-coastal, space launch pads. On the general level of military systems, I marvel at the misreading by congresspersons and media (and some SecDef's) of a system's cost effectiveness and need before it is deployed. AWACS had "no mission" according to reports of the day. F-22's shouldn't be built because there is no threat from today's second rate opponents. Today's f-15 and 16's are 25 years into inventory. What will be the state of the World, 25 years from now when the F-22/F-35's will be that old??? Obama and Gates focus on "today" will dis-arm our sons and daughters in diapers now.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:09:29 +0000

I respectively disagree that the arguement is about liberalism versus conservatism, excuse my typing skills DenseDuck, but this dialogue about acquisition waste… is about those who live off the acquisition dollars being spent, versus, those who do not live off the waste and want the waste stopped. Today a Congressional subcommittee just had a hearing on FCS, the Army did not show up…why…? You can hear a video broadcast on the Congressional Armed services web site of the hearing and about 1 hr and 40 minutes into it one should listen to Mr, ABROCROMBIE read about the ARMY’S response to GAO reports. Army needs this system…why? that General Cartwright, OSD leaders, Congress, and many Army leaders are now seeing that this acquisition waste is going to destroy the military just like military spending killed the Soviet Union. Mr GATES AND HIS NEW STAFF and the OSD engineers and PA and E group are heading in the right direction because if they don’t this acquisition train is headed for a wreck. A new lean, efficient, military is the goal to defending America. They are doing right by starting with renaming a “War” to a contingency as the first right step. Determining who are current and most likely enemies is the second right step. Letting the CINC and COCOM leader determine war material,ISR, and Battle Command network, and fire power first and then only justify REAL MILITARY NEEDS to be purchsed by the business side of the pentagon is a great step. Procurement reform is a great step. The acquisition institutions have overcome the military institutions in size and numbers. The military does not need to be in the shopping business, keep them in uniforms, boots on the ground and out of program and contracting offices. Yesterday at a hearing on contingency contracting, setting there were three retired generals (Scott, Harrington and Parsons) who now are double dripping with civilian jobs as contractors and DoD, testifying before Congress. THEY were in charge of tens of thousands of contracting and program managers while on active duty. Billions were lost, things were not done right but…here they are today testifying…and all that they recommended was adding more military and civilians jobs. That is not the answer. Congress needs to get a copy of the GAO report released this week. Bottom line the DoD does not have a handle on how many acquisition jobs they need, but this army of double dippers keeps wanting to add on more and they still believe it will solve the waste problems. NOT..? The arguement is between those who want to keep living off the waste versus those who want the pentagon waste to stop.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:02:37 +0000

Delon: Someone who was “part of the systems engineering team” for programs going back to the 1970s should probably know how to USE ENGLISH GRAMMAR by this point.

By: Monroe

Monroe — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:38:54 +0000

Wrong GEN Cartwright. This one is a Marine 4 star. The Crusader/FCS MG Cartwright is a recently-retired Army 2 star.

By: Delon

Delon — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:51:12 +0000

Let’s not forget where Gen Cartwright came from. The failed program “Crusaider” and the current 3.6 billion dollor Future Combat Systems where Crusaider was reborn under the component title NLOS-C Non Line of Sight Cannon. Programs were mismanaged as the GAO highlight primarily due to poorly defined requirement therefore leaving the door open for the contractors to deliver anything and not be held accountable by FAR To type of Termination: Termination for Default and Termination for Convience. Let’s start by forcing Defense Contractors to Build what we buy in the form of a contract defined by Functional and Performance Requirements. To often Engineers like myself with the US tax payer’s best interest at heart are unable to move forward with terminating ineffective programs because we have no legal backing to support our finding. With over 15 years DoD experience on the gov. and contractor side I have seen it all. Worked MDA, FCS, VLS, F/A-17, H-46, Aegis, H-56, V-22, etc you name it I was a part of the systems engineering team attempting to hold the contractors responsible for what they are delivering. As stated in Mike earlier submission. The program managers are te ex military personel. Not holding their now employer responsible to produce any inforcable contract. The games the powerful play for everyone to eat but the tax payer.

By: Paul H

Paul H — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:43:15 +0000

After spending 30 years active duty and 5 years as a defense consultant,I read and heard the same aruments that were expressed during my years as a junior Air Force officer in the systems acquisition and financial management businesses. It is difficult not to be somewhat cynical when you hear the same circular arguments without any new ideas and innovative solutions. The battle that rages behind the defense policy and acquisition structure all boils down to liberalism verses conservatism. We now have the most liberal President in history and our defense system will soon reflect his weakness in reality and policies as our new Commander in Chief. The DOD and Congress will bow to the thrown of this liberal icon and we will step back to the good ole Carter days when we were disrespected and discraced by even weaker second and third world countries. So you can talk threats,acquisition and weapons until hell freezes over but without a conservative like Ronald Reagan at the helm we will return to where we were during the Carter years.… and the beat goes on.

By: TB

TB — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:38:02 +0000

“Would you buy in tough economic times something that does one thing well or something that does 100 things well, and can do things you haven’t even thought about yet,” he asked rhetorically.”

Buying one system that does everything is why our stuff is so expensive and takes too long. One system that truly does one thing well is significantly less expensive than one system that tries to do it all. Redesigning systems to add more “capabilities” and bells & whistles is why our ships and planes continue to fall years and $billions behind schedule.

Want a scout vehicle? Build one. Want an anti-tank gun? Build one. Want an infantry carrier? Build one. Want a vehicle that does it all? Wait 17 years, spend $20 billion (before fielding), and you get the Bradley, which is too big and tall to scout, too small to carry infantry, and barely has the armor and firepower to fight tanks.

Some of you will respond saying “but the Bradley works in those roles.” Just because we made it work (with considerable pains) doesn’t mean it was the best use of our resources.

The story is the same with the EFV, the B-1, the canceled Comanche, the DDG-1000, the F-22, the F-35, and that 25mm/M-16 rifle contraption.

By: UH34D

UH34D — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:45:01 +0000

Why do we have to think in a global presence? That’s military doctrine and not political doctrine and all which has come about due to the military industrial complex Ike so eloquently warned us of in his farewell speech to America. We do not need to be the worlds policemen and exporters of political doctrine. No such role for America was ever envisioned by the vast majority of our Founders. If you have a large and unwieldly military, they want something to do besides remain on bases as a protective force against would be and future aggression by the many demons conjured up in the doctrinal philosophy of the military.

S/F Gordon

By: USAFJeeper

USAFJeeper — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:22:17 +0000

Agreed on ohters about Mike.

Here is my question for Mikey. If you had been in 30 years and “saw” this, why didnt you change it? As a 30 year guy, surely you were at least a GS13, you had the power.

Me? 22 years active, going on my second year civil service and I sacrificed none of my retirement pay either.

By: Bill R

Bill R — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:48:17 +0000

How many systems can you name that were fielded after 1989 ? Oh, yeah, the F-22…and ? Stryker ? LAV ??

The point is that all these guys are doing is avoiding the pain — and the cost — getting major systems through the process all the way to fielding. The more you stretch everything out now, the more these things cost in the end. There ain’t now free lunch. The Big Lie is that you can save money by “reforming” acquisition. Obama is simply not going to find 8–10% of fat to cut out of Title 10. It ain’t there. It went away with the peace dividend. Rumseld already raided the cupboard to pay for the war, and we are living with the legacy of 17 years of taking peace dividends. Look at the real numbers — Obama’s budget mostly caps defense spending to current levels in current dollars after 2012, so you are looking at 4–5% real reductions out to eternity. Who can sustain that ? And these guys are plussing up force structure to 547,000 on the Army side, the highest it has been since — ah, the Cold War.

These numbers just don’t work, but then, nothing in this administration budget works. Domestic discretionary spending goes up for two years, then it goes back down to current levels. Entitlement spending rages out of control and the deficits are massive. I don’t want to be working when these chickens come to roost, but as it stands, I probably need to work 15 more years to make ends meet.

By: Ricochet

Ricochet — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:53:05 +0000

RADARNAV

“The current system incentivizes military to retire and work in civilian contractors because they must surrender over 60% of their retirement pay to be a civil servant.”

Your statement is not entirely correct. If you want your Military time to count toward civil service retirement, and be protected from any RIFs the it is correct. HOWEVER, I did not surrender (or buy back) my retirement benefits and was able to seamlessly transition form Sr Enlisted to a GS-11 under the VRA program. Now I am NOT protected from a RIF (if it occurs) but at the same time I am recieving my full retirement and VA pays. In my case a pretty good trade-off.

As to Gen Cartwright’s comments, I think he’s right on the mark. That being said, the acquisition community is still forced to deal with Congressional meddeling, and a budget system/process the is almost incomprehensible to anyone outside the system.

By: Britt

Britt — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:55:59 +0000

@Recon Team,

You GO Man! Dead Right!

Something that our politicians are conveniently forgetting (and our sheeple!) is precisely true, the rhetoric of referring to these systems as “Cold War” systems is incorrect. Oh, and that Aegis System that they want to buy more of, Hey, Cold War Era Baby!

Just because a system was developed prior to 1989 does not make it ineffective necessarily, it merely means it was not developed after 1989.

Thanks for pointing out an example stupidity, rhetoric and group think Recon Team!

By: Recon-Team

Recon-Team — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:22:39 +0000

It should be noted that many “cold war systems” politicans like to rant on about are largely what won the Gulf War and have saved many American lives which otherwise would have been lost.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, A-10A, F-15? All were designed and built in the Cold War to fight the Soviets but were key in ODS for example and have provided great service since then. Even long range bombers, specifically the B-1B Lancer have flown countless missions and proven.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:27:30 +0000

With the exception of Mike and Jim comments, I agree with the others..But I think we have all been down this road before, as a matter of fact several times it seems by the years represented in the comments. The system is too large,too protected, too slow,to react to any new threat. We cant even agree on the threat, why, because while the CIC may make a choice, he doesnt do the funding and until they fix the problems in the Congress the rest will change the name but stay the same.. Frankly its scary to me, and I pray that somehow it can be fixed..

By: david

david — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:49:18 +0000

ALL (except Jim) great posts! Jim, go to a blog that bashes president and doesn’t require experience or intelligence (there are many). Here is what I think (24yrs Active Duty, 4 years Civ Svc, 1 yr (present) as contractor). We need an acquisition system that can distinguish between those who desire to improve the business (cost/capability), and those that desire to improve the warfighter (capability only). My experience — the govt employee should concentrate (train to) defining the requirements, the contractor to meeting those requirements with accurate cost and schedule projections. Can it be done? Of course, but requires all (politicians, govt employees, and contractor providers) to “be on the same page” — which is not going to be easy.

By: Herb de Groft

Herb de Groft — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:40:30 +0000

Whatever we do we have to put the most economically lethal weapons in the hands of the “trigger squeezers” and take out the bad guys at max effective range, making the first shot count. We may not have time for a 2nd one and we cannot afford the added cost. Training, training, training! The more we sweat in peace-time the less we bleed in war. Semper Fidelis, Herb